Reports
Actions for Managing Drug Exhibits and other High Profile Goods
Managing Drug Exhibits and other High Profile Goods
Some drug exhibits and other high profile goods, such as firearms, ammunition, vehicles and vessels, are held longer than necessary by NSW Police, increasing health and safety risks and storage costs.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #227 - released 28 February 2013
Actions for Volume One 2013 focusing on themes from 2012
Volume One 2013 focusing on themes from 2012
This overview summarises the significant findings included in my 2012 financial audit report, volumes three to eleven, and highlights NSW agencies’ overall achievements and challenges. The overview summarises key themes and messages arising from these audits to help readers understand common findings. Agencies and their audit and risk committees can use the overview to self-assess and identify issues that may be relevant to their organisations.
It found more than 85 per cent of the recommendations in my 2011 financial audit reports to Parliament were implemented in 2012. Whilst this is less than 100 per cent, NSW government agencies clearly acted on my significant recommendations. However, NSW government agencies need to do more to follow up more detailed recommendations that are made directly to management.
Actions for Efficiency of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Efficiency of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) prosecutes the most serious criminal cases on behalf of the people of New South Wales. The ODPP says it is efficient. We acknowledge that the ODPP has many skilful and committed staff who work very hard to achieve good results for the people of NSW. It could not, however, provide sufficient evidence for us to reach a conclusion on its efficiency. We also identified some significant opportunities for the ODPP to improve its management practices.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #177 - released 26 March 2008
Actions for The Cross City Tunnel Project
The Cross City Tunnel Project
In our opinion the Government’s ‘no net cost to government’ requirement was a legitimate (but not the only possible) basis for the tunnel bid process. The Government was entitled to decide that tunnel users meet the tunnel costs. Structuring the bid process on the basis of an upfront reimbursement of costs incurred (or to be incurred) by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) was therefore appropriate.
In our opinion, however, the Government, Treasury and the RTA did not sufficiently consider the implications of an upfront payment involving more than simple project cost reimbursement (i.e. the ‘Business Consideration Fee’ component). In addition, the RTA was wrong to change the toll escalation factor late in 2002 to compensate the tunnel operator, Cross City Motorway Pty Ltd, for additional costs.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #152 - released 31 May 2006
Actions for Prisoner Rehabilitation
Prisoner Rehabilitation
In recent years the department has significantly changed its approach to rehabilitating prisoners. It has introduced programs to address offending behaviour based on evidence of what works. It has also formed partnerships with other agencies to help reintegrate prisoners into the community. We believe the department is on the right path and should continue building on these initiatives.
Despite these efforts, almost one in two prisoners return to prison or community supervision within two years of release, which is similar to other states. Most of these return to prison. In our opinion there is a risk that the department releases prisoners who have not addressed their rehabilitation needs. The department appears to address immediate health and welfare concerns. But it does not formally assess the education and work needs of all prisoners.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #151 - released 24 May 2006